Axelrod: Talk of a mandate is “foolish”

posted at 12:41 pm on November 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In 2008, the Democratic sweep and Barack Obama’s big seven-point win made it clear that voters gave the Democrats a mandate for change. Yesterday, Joe Biden claimed that Obama’s two-point win and the split decision on Congress from the voters gave them “a clear sort of mandate” on raising taxes, while John Boehner claimed that the GOP win in the House gave Republicans a mandate to block tax hikes. Today on Morning Joe, David Axelrod called the notion of a presidential mandate “foolish” and “generally untrue”:

Axelrod said presidents always talk after an election about a mandate, but he called such talk “foolish.” President Obama and congressional Republicans are bracing for talks on tax hikes and spending cuts that are now set to be implemented in January.

“Everyone’s going to have to come to the table in the spirit of getting things done, but on this issue of particularly the fiscal cliff — presidents always say, ‘I have a mandate’; that’s a foolish word and generally untrue,” Axelrod told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday.

“But the president did campaign all over this country … on the need for balanced deficit reduction that included some new revenues and he was reelected in a significant way, so hopefully people will read those results and read them as a vote for cooperation.”

But did he? Howard Kurtz called Obama’s message “vague” in arguing that it’s practically impossible to claim a mandate:

If history is any guide, Obama has about a year to notch major accomplishments before midterm politics—and the shadow of lame-duck status—undermine his effectiveness. But it is equally true that by failing to lay out a detailed agenda in 2012, Obama forfeited his ability to claim a specific mandate.

When Bush won a close election in 2004, he said he planned to spend his political “capital”—and pushed a Social Security privatization scheme he had never proposed in the campaign. It quickly went down in flames.

Obama’s best hope is that he can hammer out compromises on issues that would yield political dividends for both sides. Mann says the president could make progress on immigration, energy, and education. But it would be hard to argue, given the vagueness of his campaign, that he won a specific mandate.

The results of the election probably should impose a little humility on all sides. Axelrod, at least, seems to have found that to be the true mandate of this election.

That’s the point. Talk a good game but let Obama and Reid dictate the terms of the deal, and force Pelosi and Hoyer to deliver the votes to pass it in the House, thereby protecting our caucus. Make Pelosi deliver most of the votes.

For the sake of discussion, -if little Bammie gained a mandate on ANYTHING, it’s raising taxes on the ‘rich’. The ‘rich’ (whatever that means) voted by a significant majority for democratics including little Bammie. Why do Republicans defend a demographic that doesn’t seem to want Republicans to defend them? The glitterati and Wall Street voted for him overwhelmingly.

Let’s step aside on this issue and let little Bammie f the rich, good and hard. Let them own it. Let Beyonce and Jay-Z know that little Bammie did them good and hard.

While we’re at it, let’s make sure too that the liberals favorite loopholes go away too, the tax-free bonds, the family trusts, the Hollywood moviemaker subsidies.

“But the president did campaign all over this country … on the need for balanced deficit reduction that included some new revenues and he was reelected in a significant way, so hopefully people will read those results and read them as a vote for cooperation.” – DA

Clear double speak from Axelrod.
He is just claiming a “mandate” by another name.
Obama will very clearly be saying “I was re-elected to do this ”

Well Ed, thanks for watching Morning Joe for me as I will never watch it EVER again. And please pass that along to Joe. And tell him I will be one of the millions of white voters that sit home next time if he and Christie (his big bud) try to run for President next time.

Let’s step aside on this issue and let little Bammie f the rich, good and hard. Let them own it. Let Beyonce and Jay-Z know that little Bammie did them good and hard.

slickwillie2001 on November 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

The REAL rich people don’t pay taxes: the technology of fig-leaf trusts has been perfected long ago. Warren Buffett is a poster boy for it. The people hardest hit will be small businessmen and other “upstarts” who may potentially threaten the balance of power on Mt. Olympus.

It’s a trap. “There’s no mandate,” “getting things done,” and “working together” just means that the Democrats know that they don’t have a House to pass laws, so there will be major arm twisting and demagoguing to get Republicans rubberstamp any proposed legislation from the Dems, which they will ultimately use against us in the midterms. NO COMPROMISE!

Actually, now that I think about it, this is Axelrod’s first shot at blaming Republicans for not getting a deal done.
Remember what this guy is. A perception management guru. He is just laying down some ground work to manage how the arguement developes.

While he has no mandate, he did win, and with no threat of re-election, he has the upper-hand.

So, if I am John Boehner, my offer is simple:

1. Agree to raise taxes on real millionaires (people making over 1 million, not 200k) in exchange for Obama agreeing to expand the base and have some of the 47% pay their “fair share.”
2. Agree to raise capital gains for people makiing over 1 million by 8%, people making between 500k to 1 million in capital gains, by 5 percent, those making between 200k and 500k in capital gains by 3%, in exchange for reforming the tax code in which everyone pays something (with a trigger of 1 billion in mandatory spending cuts if Obama does not reform the tax code), and on the condition of Obama working with Republicans to reform Obamacare.
3. Agree to raise the debt ceiling for an equal amount in cuts.
4. Agree to cut defense spending in a deal in which Social Security reform and Medicare reform is on the table.

Obama’s best hope is that he can hammer out compromises on issues that would yield political dividends for both sides. Mann says the president could make progress on immigration, energy, and education. But it would be hard to argue, given the vagueness of his campaign, that he won a specific mandate.

Here’s the problem with that: Over and over and over again, Obama and his cronies have show that they are either unwilling or incapable of doing anything that would give Republicans even PARTIAL credit. For anything. Debt ceiling deal? Nuked by Obam after Boehner went out of his way to get it done. Budgets? Would much rather not have one than one which the Republicans might claim credit. And this is after they locked out Republicans on the stimulus and Obamacare because they could.

Why not give them everything they want? They’ll get it anyway one way or another. Might as well let them take full responsibility for their policies.
darwin on November 8, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I’d rather make O do it by executive order. If we are going to descend into tyranny, I’d rather have a boldfaced Tyrannt than some wishywashy legislature drag us there. Make it easily recognizable for generations to come what really happened.

I think our side was shocked that Romney got less vote than McCain, around 2.5 millions vote less… But the question is were the democrats, mainly people like Axelrod, shocked that Obama got somwehre between 8 to 9 millions less vote than what he got in 2008? I do not think that they really care…

On election night, when it was obvious that Obama was going to win, I said “that’s it, the country is finished, there’s now more takers than makers, we’re doomed”.

Then I learned that Obama is the first incumbent in 180 years to win re-election by a smaller margin than he won by in his first election. That means that unlike every other incumbent since 1832, there weren’t any voters who didn’t vote for him the first time who voted for him the second time (even Bush out did him in that regard, going from losing the popular vote in his first victory, to beating Kerry by a wider margin than Obama beat Romney in his second victory).

Instead, there were a lot of people who voted for Obama the first time, who didn’t vote for him the second time. The only reason he squeaked by is because there were just enough people who voted for him the first time, who don’t think he did a very good job, but they were willing to cut him some slack because they bought into the MSM’s bulls**t line that the financial meltdown of 9/08 was like the stock market crash of 1929, and he needed more time to right the ship.

So instead of being elected with a vote of confidence, he was basically put on probation (would love to see one of those Shepard Fairey posters with the word “Probation” on it). All those people who reluctantly gave Obama a second chance, are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think he’s going to listen harder to what the American people want him to do, along with trying harder to work with Republicans. That’s not who he is. We know this, they’ll be learning it soon.

And as far as all our panicked talk about how this was our one chance to repeal Obamacare. I’m starting to have my doubts about that. Maybe all the people who aren’t as fervently political as we are need to see this lemon in action before they’ll be motivated to get rid of it.

Obviously, the fact that Obamacare has been proven to be unpopular in poll after poll simply wasn’t enough to convince enough people to throw him out of office over it. But if it’s fully implemented in a scenario where the country has Obama on a short leash, and the consensus is that it’s just as big a mess as people feared it would be, and the economy does not improve, we’ll have a good chance of making a clean sweep in 2016, with a clear mandate to kill the bill.

I’m now of the mind that it wasn’t the takers who put Obama over the top, it was the forgivers. And it won’t be long before they’ll be begging us for our forgiveness.

Let it burn! We are the makers. We will rebuild it. Do what you need to protect you and your family. Move to a heavily red area if you aren’t there yet.Be only as productive as you need to get by. Let them own the collapse.

The REAL rich people don’t pay taxes: the technology of fig-leaf trusts has been perfected long ago. Warren Buffett is a poster boy for it. The people hardest hit will be small businessmen and other “upstarts” who may potentially threaten the balance of power on Mt. Olympus.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I think that is why “Boehner” is advocating for closing the tax loop holes in order to increase tax revenues rather than increasing the tax rate… The hypcorite limousine liberals have perfected the art of using every tax loophole under the sun to pay much less taxes… So when they advocate for higher tax rates they know that they will effectively pay much less than this tax rate using all types of tax loop holes… So they give the appearence of caring for the poor and the “fair share” crap but in reality they are not willing to pay even their actual share of taxes at the current tax rate… The democrat politicians who got their money from the Limousine Liberals advocate the same thing, tell the left wing lunatic base that they want to increase the tax rate on the rich to make this base happy but at the same time give the Rich people who most of them are democrats all type of loophole to pay less in their real rate of taxes…

All the words of conservative blogs, networks, newspapers and talk radio are a total wast of time. Obama has assumed dictatorial powers in much the same way as did Hitler in pre-WWII Germany and he simply doesn’t care what his political opponents, including congress, think about his methods of operation or his decisions. He will make unilateral decisions backed by executive orders and if anyone doesn’t like them, too bad. The only way to stop him would take a degree of courage, selflessness and commitment that simply doesn’t exist in contemporary society. So, one can only hunker down and try to survive.

Obama has assumed dictatorial powers in much the same way as did Hitler in pre-WWII Germany and he simply doesn’t care what his political opponents, including congress, think about his methods of operation or his decisions. He will make unilateral decisions backed by executive orders and if anyone doesn’t like them, too bad. The only way to stop him would take a degree of courage, selflessness and commitment that simply doesn’t exist in contemporary society. So, one can only hunker down and try to survive.

rplat on November 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM
———-

This is another reason why your side loses – you say stupid way over the top sh*t like this.

ardenenoch, quite the sensible post. I’m also in the “ObamaCare *can* be undone, it will only be harder” school. Obama’s support dropped markedly, and it is highly likely that Obama’s native talent for arrogance and obstructionism, and the coming up-close-and-personal public exposure to ObamaCare, is going to repulse an even larger proportion of his electorate. Romney is a damned good man who put up a damned good fight (I am not going to nitpick his tactics; everyone thought he was a genius when his polls rose), and we will put up an even better one next time around, when the presumptive Democratic nominee is Joe Biden. Good luck with *that*, Democrats.

I just hope Iran doesn’t sail a nuke into New York harbor in the meantime.

House Republicans must all vote present on democrat bills. Give Obama anything he wants.

darwin on November 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Absolutely. I said this on some thread yesterday, in between heart palpitations and tears. I feel it more strongly today. Too bad that’s not what John “This is your time/we want you to succeed” Boehner intends.

To those who e-mailed me that Joe Biden won’t be the Dem nominee, let me point out that such has been their pattern for nearly a century: with only one exception, whoever was the Dem VP is their presidential candidate in the next election. [The sole exception was Truman’s VP, who the labor unions rejected. Labor unions dictating what the Democratic Party does — what an odd concept.]

Let’s step aside on this issue and let little Bammie f the rich, good and hard. Let them own it. Let Beyonce and Jay-Z know that little Bammie did them good and hard.

While we’re at it, let’s make sure too that the liberals favorite loopholes go away too, the tax-free bonds, the family trusts, the Hollywood moviemaker subsidies.

slickwillie2001 on November 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

The rub here is, how is “rich” defined? The floor seems to get lower with each passing day. Will $50k per year earned be deemed rich by the large numbers of people on the government dole?

The left wants to confiscate accumulated wealth. I say we start with George Soros and Warren Buffett, without regard to national borders. In other words, it matters not where they put the wealth, it belongs to the US Federal Government. Wonder what tunes they would sing then.

When Bush won a close election in 2004, he said he planned to spend his political “capital”—and pushed a Social Security privatization scheme he had never proposed in the campaign. It quickly went down in flames.

It stuff like this that is the worst kind of bias in the media, the ignorant and subtle kind. After having losing the popuylar vote in 2000 and barely eking it out enough hanging chads to allow the Supreme Court to decide he was in fact the winner, Democrats were hysterical that he stole the election from them. In 2004, during an increasingly unpopular war, Bush managed to win the popular vote, boost his total over 2000, and boost his electoral vote by winning states he previously such as Iowa and New Mexico. Ohio was close, but Bush did have some political capital for a guy who was accused of cheating before and who the media were practically predicting would lose on election day. He also had coattails in the Senate and House where they gained seats, so yeah, he had a mandate.

House Republicans must all vote present on democrat bills. Give Obama anything he wants.

darwin on November 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Absolutely. I said this on some thread yesterday, in between heart palpitations and tears. I feel it more strongly today. Too bad that’s not what John “This is your time/we want you to succeed” Boehner intends.

totherightofthem on November 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM
——-

Yeah, they should totally do this.

It wouldn’t backfire at all.

It’s okay to be bummed out and desperate 2 days after you got your asses handed to you, but you jugheads rarely think things through, do you.

This is another reason why your side loses – you say stupid way over the top sh*t like this.

You’d better go buy some canned goods and “hunker down”.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I started hunkering down in 2008. Now we’re debt-free and even paid off the mortgage. Also started buying groceries that are on 2 for 1 sale. Etc. All this means we are now situated about as good as we can get to weather the economic storms.

Can you say the same? I doubt it. You’re probably still cruising along in la la land. Good.

Listen, don’t waste your time here. You need to make sure you have your affairs in order for that, hopefully far off future day, when you pass on and your family have to wait six weeks to see you buried in Australia. Enjoy it while you can. Eventually, even that bastion of the former British Empire will be speaking Chinese.

Or you can explain how voting present or abstaining will backfire when the Republicans won’t be “obstructing” anything at all. Get the definition of “obstructing” down first though.

Obama has about a year to notch major accomplishments before midterm politics—and the shadow of lame-duck status—undermine his effectiveness.

You’re under the mistaken impression that he gives a flying fig. Now that he no longer has to campaign, he will go back to playing golf and basketball and leave the heavy lifting to his administration and Congress.

The REAL rich people don’t pay taxes: the technology of fig-leaf trusts has been perfected long ago. Warren Buffett is a poster boy for it. The people hardest hit will be small businessmen and other “upstarts” who may potentially threaten the balance of power on Mt. Olympus.

Archivarix on November 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

You missed where I said “While we’re at it, let’s make sure too that the liberals favorite loopholes go away too, the tax-free bonds, the family trusts, the Hollywood moviemaker subsidies.”

The rub here is, how is “rich” defined? The floor seems to get lower with each passing day. Will $50k per year earned be deemed rich by the large numbers of people on the government dole?

The left wants to confiscate accumulated wealth. I say we start with George Soros and Warren Buffett, without regard to national borders. In other words, it matters not where they put the wealth, it belongs to the US Federal Government. Wonder what tunes they would sing then.

totherightofthem on November 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Let’s call the Rich anyone who makes over $100,000 a year. It’s a nice round number. Have Boehner say that he has heard the will of the people and they want all tax deductions eliminated and loopholes closed for anyone who makes more than that.

Beyonce can write a song about how she can’t possibly get by on that amount and taxes are too confiscatory. Sure to be a Billboard 100 hit.

Let’s call the Rich anyone who makes over $100,000 a year. It’s a nice round number. Have Boehner say that he has heard the will of the people and they want all tax deductions eliminated and loopholes closed for anyone who makes more than that.

Beyonce can write a song about how she can’t possibly get by on that amount and taxes are too confiscatory. Sure to be a Billboard 100 hit.

Lily on November 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM
——–

That you’re suggesting that a $100,000 salary qualifies as rich speaks volumes about how little you know about money, jobs, the economy, or being an adult in 2012.

That you’re suggesting that a $100,000 salary qualifies as rich speaks volumes about how little you know about money, jobs, the economy, or being an adult in 2012.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Obama and the liberals are saying that a person who makes “$ 200,000 a year” is considered rich and this speaks volume speaks volumes about how little he and the liberals know about money, jobs, the economy, or being an adult in 2012.

That you’re suggesting that a $100,000 salary qualifies as rich speaks volumes about how little you know about money, jobs, the economy, or being an adult in 2012.

Dave Rywall on November 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

If this were true I would be the perfect Obama voter.

However, why don’t YOU try to explain to revenge voters and Beyonce fans everywhere how $100,000 a year isn’t enough money to live on and there should be tax breaks for people like her?

Because this is exactly how this issue was portrayed by the Democrats. That standard deductions that have been in place for all businesses were “tax breaks” and “loopholes” that the rich exploit and they needed to have their taxes raised to make it Fair for everyone else.

Go ahead and explain why Beyonce should get a “tax break”. Or some evil corporation that makes as much as she does.

They are all the same, aren’t they? Or are some animals more equal than others?

The results of the election probably should impose a little humility on all sides. Axelrod, at least, seems to have found that to be the true mandate of this election.

He is probably more aware than anyone else how little actual support Obama had in this election. Given that the campaign went into debt in the final days, he knows how close his “get out the vote / vote buying” effort came to failure.

Let’s speak of the Republican agenda: to cut government spending and regulations, to reform taxes and entitlements.

To achieve the first two, I recommend refusing to appropriate any money at all for those agencies and departments that have been the worst regulators and the most wasteful. So, no money at all for EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education. Cuts of 50% or more for Dept of Labor and Dept of Commerce.